Skip to content


Sitanath Panda Vs. Eara NaraIn Mahapatra - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in30Ind.Cas.58
AppellantSitanath Panda
RespondentEara NaraIn Mahapatra
Cases ReferredRafiuddin Mahomed v. Iswar Raut
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), sections 20, 21, 105, 116, scope of - fair and equitable rent, settlement of--non-occupancy raiyats--tenant, status of--lease by certificated guardian, without sanction of district judge, if valid. - .....controversy consequently is, what is the status of the plaintiff in view of the provisions of the bengal tenancy act? upon that matter, there is no room for controversy. on the 10th december 1891, that is, six years before the grant of the lease to the plaintiff, sections 20 and 21 of the bengal tenancy act were extended to the district in which the disputed land is situate. the result of that extension was to make section 6 of act x of 1859 inapplicable, as laid down by this court in the case of brahmanunda mahapatra v. arjun raut 1 c.l.j. 310 which was accepted as good law in rafiuddin mahomed v. iswar raut 20 ind. cas. 394 : 17 c.l.j. 585. it was not till the 21st august 1906 that section 116 of the bengal tenancy act was extended to this district. in the interval the plaintiff had.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal on behalf of the landlord-defendant in a suit commenced by the tenant-respondent under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for settlement of fair rent. The landlord defended the suit on the allegation that the plaintiff was not his tenant. It was established, however, that in 1895 the plaintiff got a lease for a term of six years, from the mother of the defendant while the latter was an infant. It has been argued that this lease was not binding upon the appellant; inasmuch as his mother, though his certificated guardian, had not obtained the sanction of the District Judge. This contention is of no assistance to the appellant, because even if it be assumed--as the matter has not been investigated--that the lease had not been sanctioned by the District Judge, it was merely voidable at the instance of the defendant. No question, however, can now arise as to the avoidance of the lease. The original term of the lease has expired, and the plaintiff has been allowed to hold over ever since 1901. Even if the lease had been for five years or for a shorter period, and the plaintiff had held over after the expiry of the term, as he has done, he would have by this time acquired the status that he has actually attained. The real question in controversy consequently is, what is the status of the plaintiff in view of the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act? Upon that matter, there is no room for controversy. On the 10th December 1891, that is, six years before the grant of the lease to the plaintiff, Sections 20 and 21 of the Bengal Tenancy Act were extended to the district in which the disputed land is situate. The result of that extension was to make Section 6 of Act X of 1859 inapplicable, as laid down by this Court in the case of Brahmanunda Mahapatra v. Arjun Raut 1 C.L.J. 310 which was accepted as good law in Rafiuddin Mahomed v. Iswar Raut 20 Ind. Cas. 394 : 17 C.L.J. 585. It was not till the 21st August 1906 that Section 116 of the Bengal Tenancy Act was extended to this district. In the interval the plaintiff had been in occupation for a period of nine years and had acquired the status of a non-occupancy raiyat. That status could not obviously be retrospectively affected by the subsequent extension of Section 116. The plaintiff is thus a non-occupancy raiyat under the defendant and is entitled to have fair rent assessed under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, The decree of the Special Judge must consequently be affirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs. We assess the hearing fee at one gold mohur.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //